Kegg

Find

find

Read-onlyIdempotent

Example tool call

This call uses example arguments supplied in the tool’s input schema.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "query": "glucose",
      "database": "compound"
    },
    "name": "find"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`query`	Yes	Search term, e.g. "glucose", "aspirin", "diabetes".
`database`	Yes	One of: compound, drug, disease, pathway, genes, enzyme, glycan, module, ko.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedJul 29, 2026

addedInput schema / examples

Added value: +[
+  {
+    "database": "compound",
+    "query": "glucose"
+  },
+  {
+    "database": "drug",
+    "query": "aspirin"
+  },
+  {
+    "database": "disease",
+    "query": "diabetes"
+  }
+]

First observedJun 9, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds that it is 'keyless' (no API key) and returns KEGG IDs with descriptions, providing extra context beyond annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is three sentences plus a standalone 'Keyless.' which is efficient. Each sentence serves a purpose: purpose, domain context, examples, and auth info. No redundancy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool is a simple search with 2 parameters and no output schema, the description explains the database options, query examples, and the return format (IDs with descriptions). It is sufficiently complete for an agent to use correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% with descriptions for both parameters. The description reinforces this with concrete examples and a list of database values, making parameter usage clearer.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states 'Search KEGG by keyword' and provides specific examples of databases and queries, making the purpose unmistakable and distinct from sibling tools like get_entry or search_within.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It explicitly lists acceptable databases and gives example queries, guiding when to use. However, it lacks explicit 'when not to use' or alternatives, though the context is clear.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Kegg tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.